Skip to main content
Glama

cnc_machinability_check

Screen a 3D solid for 3-axis CNC machinability: count required setups, flag undercuts, deep pockets, small radii, and thin walls to guide design decisions.

Instructions

3-axis CNC machinability screen off a live solid — pure geometry, NO CAM engine (no toolpath, no gouge check, no holder collision).

Counts SETUPS from a tool-approach census: for every machined face, which of ±X/±Y/±Z can both address it (the normal does not point away — a wall parallel to the tool axis is milled by the cutter's periphery) and reach it (a ray from the face escapes the solid, the same caster the moldability undercut check uses), reduced to a minimum cover. Faces lying on the stock envelope are excluded: they are billet surfaces, and counting them would quote six setups for a plain block.

Findings: 'undercut' (a machined face no principal approach reaches — 5-axis, a special cutter, or a redesign), 'deep_pocket' (depth/(2·corner radius) past max_l_over_d — the corner radius caps the cutter and it cannot reach), 'small_radius' (an internal corner below the smallest cutter quoted, including a SHARP planar corner reported as radius 0, which no rotating tool can produce), 'thin_wall'. pass is false when any fires; more than max_setups is a warning, not a failure. fidelity='correlation', band_pct=None (an ordinal screen — rank variants with score, don't gate on it).

Returns {setups, setup_directions, coverage, machined_faces, stock_faces, machined_area_mm2, min_internal_radius_mm, max_l_over_d_seen, undercut_faces, findings:[{code, severity, feature, detail}], warnings, score, pass, fidelity, band_pct, basis, escalate_to='cnc_time_estimate', limitations, n_faces}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelYes
max_setupsNo
min_wall_mmNo
max_l_over_dNo
min_tool_radius_mmNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses what is counted (setups from a tool-approach census), what is excluded (stock envelope faces), specific finding codes and their meanings, the pass/fail logic, fidelity limitations ('ordinal screen — rank variants, don't gate'), and what is not computed (no CAM engine). This exceeds typical transparency requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but front-loads the core purpose and then organizes detail into a census explanation, findings list, and return-object summary. Every sentence adds technical substance needed for a complex screen with no output schema. It is dense rather than wasteful, though readability suffers slightly from packed jargon.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given high complexity, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions in the schema, the description supplies a comprehensive return-field list, finding semantics, pass/warning distinction, fidelity limitations, and escalation path. Nothing essential for invoking or interpreting the tool appears missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly references max_l_over_d in the deep_pocket finding and min_tool_radius via 'small_radius', and mentions max_setups as a warning threshold, but it does not explicitly define min_wall_mm or clarify the units, defaults, or exact effect of each parameter. Partial compensation for a 5-parameter tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: '3-axis CNC machinability screen off a live solid — pure geometry, NO CAM engine.' It distinguishes itself from the CAM-oriented sibling cnc_time_estimate by clarifying that no toolpath, gouge check, or holder collision is performed. An agent can immediately tell what the tool does and does not do.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for use: it is an ordinal geometry screen, not a gate, and directs escalation to 'cnc_time_estimate' via escalate_to. It also warns that more than max_setups is a warning, not a failure. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with other DFM or screening siblings like dfm_check, moldability_check, or dfa_check.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools